A World without Religion?

[PRmerger]

But the person who believes in objective morality is not the arbiter of said morality-

You are correct.

thus they can still be said to be imposing their interpretation of their supposed objective moral rules.

Indeed. I see nothing wrong with imposing (my interpretation of my supposed objective) moral rules on others.

Thus the criticisms levied above still apply.

How so?

If you don’t believe in objective morality, actions become simply preferences. Like, I like mashed potatoes. You like mashed turnips.

It would be absurd for me to tell you: *no! you are absolutely wrong to like mashed turnips!
*
Similarly, it would be absurd for you to tell someone who believes killing his daughter is moral: no! you are absolutely wrong to kill your daughter.

After all, there is no objective morality. It’s all based on our opinions/assessment of the action, right?

 

[PRmerger]

The world might be nicer if Santa was real (free presents!), but that doesn’t make it so. I generally don’t choose my beliefs based on what I wish were true- otherwise I most certainly wouldn’t go to work tomorrow (they wouldn’t fire me! Imagine how sad the world would be if that were the case)

Haha! Have you been reviewing my posts here, posted months and years ago?? (I saw that you visited my profile page, which made me smile). You seem to be channeling me! The above is my mantra.

From 2010: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7414103&postcount=530

And 2011: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7624298&postcount=379
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7884854&postcount=100
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8184321&postcount=266

etc etc etc

 

[PRmerger]

So first, the existence of a deity isn’t an entire framework, it’s just an element of one. Christians have a different set off assumptions that druids, who had a different set than Roman pagans, who were different from Hindus. Moreover, even within Christianity it’s nut like everyone agrees.

Let’s get our definitions straight then. When I say “God” I mean “the God of the philosophers”. The classic definition of God.

Billions of people believe in this God. Billions.

And yet, I presume, you reject this? Even though it’s an established framework, with arguments supporting this framework.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I am more afraid of dealing with psychopaths who are bereft of “natural honesty and benevolence” and compassion, those possessing “vaulting ambition” like Macbeth, and religious fanatics than atheists. The former two embody the negative traits of Black.

Two issues here.

Are you assuming that atheists will never be fanatics? Why not? When Voltaire lived there were relatively few atheists, and so their capacity for fanaticism was seriously limited. But if you look at the history of the twentieth century, the record for the fanaticism of atheist governments dwarfs the fanaticism of so-called religious types.

Also, consider whether, if religion is outlawed universally, you will be allowed to practice your Catholic faith. Common sense tells me no. Atheistic fanaticism will rule with a vengeance, and there will be no appeal to a higher moral authority to stem it. As Pope Francis just commented, mocking religions with cartoons is just the tip of the iceberg of atheistic fanaticism that is running rampant not only in France but throughout the world.

news.yahoo.com/pope-charlie-hebdo-limits-free-expression-121639260.html

 

[stewstew03]

…

My reaction to their assertions:

http://media.tumblr.com/6a27b285f5b36df3f539a929d577e396/tumblr_inline_n2jpzc2m8h1rcrw1m.gif

Is that you?

 

[PRmerger]

Is that you?

It would be nice to look like her. She’s pretty!

 

[stewstew03]

No, but when you show up and say “You may not do X, the objective rules of the universe forbid it!” and the other guys says “No, this is not the case!” then it’s a battle of interpretations.

Well, let’s add some more context because I think you mentioned something about “first principles” in another post. Are there instances where it is “good” to cause needless harm and suffering to an innocent human being?

Considering my beliefs have shifted substantially and generally I’ve found that the world I lived in before was a “happier” place- there could be some subconscious selection going on, but it’s not “wouldn’t it be swell if XYZ.” Which is precisely what theists appeal to when they talk about how much nicer the world is with the all powerful spiritual overlord(s) around.

Really? I would think it would be the opposite. When I was an atheist (more or less a phase I went through in high school/college) – the world without rules or accountability seemed pretty swell…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Really? I would think it would be the opposite. When I was an atheist (more or less a phase I went through in high school/college) – the world without rules or accountability seemed pretty swell…

Yes, at that age for most young men the world seems pretty swell. It usually takes a few years of growing up to realize how swell the world really is not, whether or not you have faith.

 

[Bradski]

Important questions: The Muslim father believes that he is right. In your opinion, is he doing the moral thing since he believes he is right?

Or do you believe that, regardless of his opinions of his action, it is wrong?

He’s doing what he considers to be moral and which you and I consider to be immoral. He’ll be able to give reasons why he thinks he’s right and we’ll be able to give him reasons why we think he’s not. Assuming that you don’t simply say: It’s wrong because it’s wrong, your reasons and mine will be exactly the same.

You seem to have a problem when someone says something along the lines: I don’t believe that (but as it’s all relative) you are free to do so (that is, to believe it). You immediately jump to the erroneous conclusion that that means that I would have to agree to a father killing his daughter simply because he personally thinks it’s OK. Which is nonsense.

Consider something like contraception. If you believe it’s immoral and I don’t, then I can say that I’m quite happy letting people use it and I will do myself but if you think it’s wrong, then feel free not to use it. You will have reasons that you can give that it is wrong, but your decision will have no effect on anyone but you and your partner.

Now if someone says that he thinks it’s right to kill his daughter, he will also be able to give reasons for holding that belief. And this is very important…he is free to believe that. You cannot tell someone what he is free to think and what he is free not to think. Very 1984, wouldn’t you say. But in this case, harm is going to occur. So in this case, we need to do what we can to prevent that harm (because we have reasonable arguments to do so).

And please don’t bring up the argument about adultery again, saying that no harm is done but it’s still wrong. Harm doesn’t have to be a physical thing. For example, if the man kills his daughter then punishment is due. It’s no good saying he should be left free because that was his only daughter and he will not, indeed cannot, do it again. Allowing him to go free would harm the concept of justice.

 

[PRmerger]

He’s doing what he considers to be moral and which you and I consider to be immoral. He’ll be able to give reasons why he thinks he’s right and we’ll be able to give him reasons why we think he’s not. Assuming that you don’t simply say: It’s wrong because it’s wrong, your reasons and mine will be exactly the same.

Sure.

But you didn’t answer the question. Is it wrong, even if he believes it’s wrong?

You seem to have a problem when someone says something along the lines: I don’t believe that (but as it’s all relative) you are free to do so (that is, to believe it).

But you are saying: you are NOT free to put your beliefs into action. Why? Because…

it’s objectively immoral for this father to kill his daughter.

You immediately jump to the erroneous conclusion that that means that I would have to agree to a father killing his daughter simply because he personally thinks it’s OK. Which is nonsense.

It’s absolutely logical, Bradski.

Consider something like contraception. If you believe it’s immoral and I don’t, then I can say that I’m quite happy letting people use it and I will do myself but if you think it’s wrong, then feel free not to use it. You will have reasons that you can give that it is wrong, but your decision will have no effect on anyone but you and your partner.

What about slavery? Are you quite happy letting people own slaves, but you wouldn’t do it yourself?

Now if someone says that he thinks it’s right to kill his daughter, he will also be able to give reasons for holding that belief. And this is very important…he is free to believe that. You cannot tell someone what he is free to think and what he is free not to think. Very 1984, wouldn’t you say. But in this case, harm is going to occur. So in this case, we need to do what we can to prevent that harm (because we have reasonable arguments to do so).

Sure.

But you believe that he can’t act on this belief.

And please don’t bring up the argument about adultery again, saying that no harm is done but it’s still wrong.** Harm doesn’t have to be a physical thing**.

Egg-zactly. One’s psyche can be harmed from sin. Society can be harmed. Relationships can be harmed. That’s the nature of sin. Very Catholic what you have said!

For example, if the man kills his daughter then punishment is due. It’s no good saying he should be left free because that was his only daughter and he will not, indeed cannot, do it again. Allowing him to go free would harm the concept of justice.

Ummm…yep. The above is a nonsequitur, but it’s true nonetheless.

Bottom line: no one is saying someone can’t believe something. But when you say that this person can’t ACT on his belief, then you are imposing your view on him, and that’s kind of weird if you don’t believe in objective morality.

A parallel would be: you are certainly free to believe that mashed turnips are wonderful, but when you start to eat it, I take it away because: it’s just wrong to put that belief into action.

Now, if the morality of this father is NOT a preference or opinion, but rather OBJECTIVELY discerned to be right or wrong…then it makes absolute sense to tell him: even if you believe you are acting morally, YOU ARE NOT. And I must stop you from killing your daughter.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Well, I put anyone who denies the existence of free will in the same category as those who believe we never landed on the moon, holocaust deniers, 6000 year old earthers, those who deny the historical Jesus ever walked the planet…

My reaction to their assertions:

Then you’re miscategorizing them. There’s solid evidence for those things (or at least pretty good evidence in the case of Jesus). What’s the evidence for free will? What does free will even mean, particularly with decision making driven wholly by physical processes in the brain?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Well, let’s add some more context because I think you mentioned something about “first principles” in another post. Are there instances where it is “good” to cause needless harm and suffering to an innocent human being?

From my perspective? No. I suspect most, but not all, would agree with me.

Really? I would think it would be the opposite. When I was an atheist (more or less a phase I went through in high school/college) – the world without rules or accountability seemed pretty swell…

Different strokes, I guess. I liked it when the whole of the world was made for me and my kind, and the spiritual overlord would let me hangout forever in his sky-castle if I played my cards right. Being worm food is much less enticing.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Indeed. I see nothing wrong with imposing (my interpretation of my supposed objective) moral rules on others.

I’d claim that your imposition of interpretation is no less imperialist than my imposition of subjective rules…

How so?

If you don’t believe in objective morality, actions become simply preferences. Like, I like mashed potatoes. You like mashed turnips.

It would be absurd for me to tell you: *no! you are absolutely wrong to like mashed turnips!
*
Similarly, it would be absurd for you to tell someone who believes killing his daughter is moral: no! you are absolutely wrong to kill your daughter.

After all, there is no objective morality. It’s all based on our opinions/assessment of the action, right?

Because you can’t truthfully claim that “X is absolutely wrong!” unless you’re the one who gets to make the rules. The best you can do is “I think that X is absolutely wrong!”

 

[Bradski]

But you didn’t answer the question. Is it wrong, even if he believes it’s wrong?

Yes, I believe so. But it seems you want to me say simply: ‘It’s wrong’, period. Something with which, in normal everyday discourse, I would have no problem. But…I believe he’s wrong (and this should never need to actually be pointed out) for very good reasons. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for me to think he was wrong without them.

But you are saying: you are NOT free to put your beliefs into action. Why? Because…it’s objectively immoral for this father to kill his daughter.

Correct. The harm that he would suffer (loss of honour?) can in no way be compared to the harm he would cause his daughter. Little bit of Bentham comes in handy now and then.

What about slavery? Are you quite happy letting people own slaves, but you wouldn’t do it yourself?

Uh? If someone wants to do something and I don’t see any harm being done, then I’m going to mind my own business, grab another beer and put the sports channel on. If I find that the guy next door is keeping a couple of people in his basement to work for him for no wages, then I’ll probably go around there with a cricket bat and point out the error of his ways.

Egg-zactly. One’s psyche can be harmed from sin. Society can be harmed. Relationships can be harmed. That’s the nature of sin. Very Catholic what you have said!

As I said, my psyche is just fine. And when I see something that is likely to harm society I’ll let you know and we can discuss it.

Bottom line: no one is saying someone can’t believe something. But when you say that this person can’t ACT on his belief, then you are imposing your view on him, and that’s kind of weird if you don’t believe in objective morality.

No, not weird at all. All down to harm. So if you enjoy mashed turnips and I don’t, then go for your life. But if you enjoy torturing puppies, then I’ll have something to say. I’m sure you’ll have reasons for doing it. But I think my reasons for not doing it will trump yours.

Now, if the morality of this father is NOT a preference or opinion, but rather OBJECTIVELY discerned to be right or wrong…then it makes absolute sense to tell him: even if you believe you are acting morally, YOU ARE NOT. And I must stop you from killing your daughter.

You can use that reason yourself , but as I keep saying, telling somebody that they can’t do something simply BECAUSE you believe it to be objectively wrong won’t get you anywhere. You need reasonable arguments (and as we know with your claims that my psyche and society are in danger, those arguments don’t always hold water).

I’m not sure you’ve actually defined what an objective truth would be. It can’t be one that is simply held by all – you can’t vote on it. And it can’t be one that you simply hold to be so. Maybe something here to do with, I dunno…the church?

 

[PRmerger]

I’d claim that your imposition of interpretation is no less imperialist than my imposition of subjective rules.

Nope.

Arrogant: you cannot eat those mashed turnips even though you say they are your favorite food! Give them to me right now!

*Not *arrogant: you cannot eat that arsenic! It’s poisonous. Give that to me right now!

The former is your position, if you propose that morality is simply a matter of opinion. You then come in and impose your opinion on someone else, saying he can’t have his opinion. That’s overbearing, imperious and arrogant.

The latter is my position, since I believe that objective morality exists. It is NOT overbearing, imperious and arrogant to step in and stop someone from doing something harmful to himself or others.

If morality is NOT “different stroke” but rather objectively right or wrong, then imposing your morality on someone else is the most moral thing to do.

Unless you believe it’s imperious to stop someone from drinking poison if it’s his opinion that it tastes good?

 

[PRmerger]

Then you’re miscategorizing them. There’s solid evidence for those things (or at least pretty good evidence in the case of Jesus). What’s the evidence for free will? What does free will even mean, particularly with decision making driven wholly by physical processes in the brain?

Sorry. I don’t dialogue with folks about how we actually landed on the moon, the holocaust really, truly happened, how the earth is actually millions of years old, Jesus is a actual historical figure…

I did try, in the past. I really did. I tried to use good old logic, science, reason and facts, but the arguments that were presented just made me go

https://imgur.com/ldCUBKR

Similarly, I don’t dialogue with folks about whether we have free will or not.

#itsabigwasteotime

Of course, I am not saying we shouldn’t entertain the concept of free will’s existence, but any conclusion that we don’t have it would just be gaga lala nonsense to me.

Just sayin’…

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry. I don’t dialogue with folks about how we actually landed on the moon, the holocaust really, truly happened, how the earth is actually millions of years old, Jesus is a actual historical figure…

I did try, in the past. I really did. I tried to use good old logic, science, reason and facts, but the arguments that were presented just made me go

https://imgur.com/ldCUBKR

Similarly, I don’t dialogue with folks about whether we have free will or not.

#itsabigwasteotime

Of course, I am not saying we shouldn’t entertain the concept of free will’s existence, but any conclusion that we don’t have it would just be gaga lala nonsense to me.

Just sayin’…

Oh. And one more group of folks I don’t dialogue with: the ones who say 911 was a hoax or conspiracy or that secret things were hidden from the public…or whatever the heck it is they propose.

Now, if they want to investigate what really happened on 911, I say: go for it! But any conclusion other than the commonly accepted one is…well…

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Nope.

Arrogant: you cannot eat those mashed turnips even though you say they are your favorite food! Give them to me right now!

*Not *arrogant: you cannot eat that arsenic! It’s poisonous. Give that to me right now!

When you can empirically, and I’m going to have to insist on empiricism, to verify morality the way you can with toxicity, feel free to let me know.

 

[PRmerger]

When you can empirically, and I’m going to have to insist on empiricism, to verify morality the way you can with toxicity, feel free to let me know.

And when you can empirically, and I’m going to have to insist on empiricism, to verify the existence of the mind the way you can with toxicity, feel free to let me know.

 

[PRmerger]

And when you can empirically, and I’m going to have to insist on empiricism, to verify the existence of the mind the way you can with toxicity, feel free to let me know.

Also, I’m going to have to insist that you empirically, and I’m going to have to insist on empiricism, demonstrate why I have to use empiricism to prove the existence of objective morality.

What data demonstrates that, Animal?